[dang]

Reasoned discussion has a fraught relationship with large groups.

I'd be a bit careful about the word "allowed" because that posits an "allower" when much of the process you're describing is stochastic. I'm not trying to evade responsibility for the part that we play (at least I hope I'm not), but it's so much more complicated than just "allow v. unallow".

[fsckboy]

you think of the problem you are solving as "avoid flamewars including through automation to make the task easier on a no-profit forum"

I think there needs to be more room for "(perhaps heated) discussion of actual science in the face of an ongoing existential threat to vast swathes of western civilization and the third world"

I think there needs to be more room for discussion of a seemingly real, Orwellian-Huxleyan ideological takeover of important cultural institutions like wikipedia, the NY Times, Google, Apple, Facebook, etc., a left wing doppelganger to the Red Scare of the 50's.

full disclosure: I'm a former leftie, I know the propaganda I used to spew in the name of the earnest conviction of what morally superior people we lefties were compared to those awful troglodytes, and I remember how easily the centrists would be convinced to go along by nice words. I mean, black lives DO matter, right? but BLM Inc(tm) is a Marxist led radical coalition that sees further violence as helping the cause by proving their case.

Cheers, I appreciate the work you do. :)